↓ Skip to main content

Performance of five different bleeding-prediction scores in patients with acute pulmonary embolism

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Performance of five different bleeding-prediction scores in patients with acute pulmonary embolism
Published in
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11239-015-1239-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

F. A. Klok, C. Niemann, C. Dellas, G. Hasenfuß, S. Konstantinides, M. Lankeit

Abstract

Bleeding-prediction scores may help guiding management of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE), although no such score has been validated. We aimed to externally validate and compare two bleeding-prediction scores for venous thromboembolism to three scores developed for patients with atrial fibrillation in a real-world cohort of PE patients. We performed a prospective observational cohort study in 448 consecutive PE patients who were treated with heparins followed by vitamin-K-antagonists. The Kuijer, RIETE, HEMORR2HAGES, HAS-BLED and ATRIA scores were assessed at baseline. All patients were followed for the occurrence of major bleeding over a 30-day period. The accuracies of both the overall, original 3-level and newly defined optimal 2-level outcome of the scores were evaluated and compared, both for the 30-day period as well as for bleeding occurring in versus after the first week of treatment. 20 of 448 patients suffered major bleeding resulting in a cumulative incidence of 4.5 % (95 % CI 2.5-6.5). The predictive power of all five scores for bleeding was poor (c-statistics 0.57-0.64), both for the 3-level and 2-level score outcomes. No individual score was found to be superior. The HAS-BLED score had a good c-statistic for bleedings occurring after the first week of treatment (0.75, 95 % CI 0.47-1.0). Current available scoring systems have insufficient accuracy to predict overall anticoagulation-associated bleeding in patients treated for acute PE. To optimally target bleeding-prevention strategies, the development of a high quality PE-specific risk score is urgently needed.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 20%
Student > Master 8 15%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 15 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2020.
All research outputs
#4,768,617
of 23,070,218 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
#193
of 993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,682
of 264,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,070,218 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.